5.  The applicant, Mr Artur Bystrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Strzelin.
6.  On 8 September 2000 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained the applicant on remand on suspicion of having committed theft and forgery and of leadership of an organised criminal gang.
7.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on several occasions. In successive decisions, given on 29 November 2000, 15 February and 7 December 2001, 23 August and 2 October 2002, the court repeatedly relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offences and that there was a real risk that he would receive a severe sentence. This – together with the fact that he had acted in a gang and that there were several co-accused in the case –gave rise to a presumption that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.
8.  In the meantime, on 9 February 2001 a bill of indictment was issued, charging the applicant with multiple theft, forgery, possession of a firearm without a licence and leadership of an organised criminal gang.
9.  The first court’s hearing took place on 6 April 2001. Subsequently, nine sessions were scheduled in 2001; eighteen in 2002; sixteen in 2003; and eleven in 2004. In 2001 the trial court heard testimonies of thirty-four witnesses; in 2002 - of forty-six; in 2003 – of five; and in 2004 of four. The court also examined other voluminous evidence and considered various procedural motions filed by the applicant and other co-defendants.
10.  As the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory 2-year time-limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that period. On 20 November and 6 December 2002 and 5 March 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the applications, finding that the grounds previously given for the detention on remand were still valid and that the use of the most severe preventive measure was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation.
11.  The applicant challenged his detention on remand. He lodged appeals against the Wrocław Regional Court’s decisions of 15 February 2001, 4 September 2002 and 5 March 2003. His appeals were dismissed by decisions of the Wrocław Court of Appeal of 23 March 2001, 2 October 2002 and 26 March 2003, respectively.
12.  He also lodged numerous requests for release from detention, which were dismissed by the Wrocław Regional Court’s decisions of 7 December 2001, 28 June and 8 August 2002.
13.  Further, he also requested the application of a more lenient preventive measure in place of detention on remand. The request was dismissed by the Wrocław District Prosecutor’s decision of 18 October 2000.
14.  By a decision of the Wrocław Regional Court of 29 April 2003 the applicant was released from detention.
15.  On 21 September 2004 the Wrocław Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
16.  On an unspecified date, presumably in 2008 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.
17.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time with the domestic court, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
18.  During the detention, the applicant’s requests for visits from his wife were rejected on 23 February, 2 March and 30 April 2001. As stated in the decisions of the Wrocław Regional Court of 2 March and 30 April 2001 this was due to the fact that the wife was a witness in the applicant’s case.
19.  The applicant further submitted that during his pre-trial detention his correspondence with the Court had been censored. To that effect the applicant supplied an envelope of a letter from the Registry of 12 March 2003 bearing a stamp “censored” (ocenzurowano), a date “21 March 2003” and an illegible signature.
20.  In his letters to the Court of 21 February and 23 June 2002 and 23 November 2005, the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Wrocław Remand Centre.
21.  He alleged in particular that he was detained with six other persons in a room measuring 16m2; he could only take walks in a closed area measuring 20m2 for 25 persons; there was no warm water available and the ventilation and sanitation were insufficient.
22.  The applicant complained to the detention centre’s authorities about those conditions, however to no avail. He also claimed that if he were to complain to higher authorities he would run a risk of harassment by the guards, given that his correspondence had been censored.